The Megyn Kelly Show - Biden's Corruption as VP Revealed, and Kohberger's Idaho Murders Alibi, with Newt Gingrich, Viva Frei, and Peter Tragos | Ep. 607

Episode Date: August 14, 2023

Megyn Kelly is joined by Newt Gingrich, author of "March to the Majority," to discuss Merrick Garland appointing David Weiss as special counsel now to oversee the Hunter Biden case after the plea deal fell apart, what the GOP in the House continue to uncover about potential corruption, continued spin from the media and the left, how VP Biden's potentially corrupt actions were never litigated in 2020, how the House could defund the sham special counsels, Gingrich's viral moment at the 2012 CNN debate, whether Trump should debate in the GOP primary, songwriter Oliver Anthony’s song “Rich Men” that went viral, why it’s resonating with Americans today, the playbook for having the GOP win big again, and more. Then it's Kelly's Court with lawyers Viva Frei and Peter Tragos to discuss the latest on the Idaho college murders case, the details behind Bryan Kohberger’s new alibi, whether there's enough evidence to convict him, Derek Chauvin's appeal in the George Floyd murder case, if he has a valid argument to change the venue, the breaking news that a Georgia court may have preemptively revealed the charges in the indictment accidentally, how that affects the perception of the charges, Lizzo facing a lawsuit against her backup dancers, how they’re claiming Lizzo created a hostile work environment, Leah Remini suing Scientology, and more.Gingrich: https://www.amazon.com/March-Majority-Story-Republican-Revolution-ebook/dp/B0BH4M9M93Viva: https://vivabarneslaw.locals.comTragos: https://www.youtube.com/@LawyerYouKnow Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. Monday again. That seems like a better headline than happy Monday. It's Monday again. Here we are. We meet again. After months of trying to argue that U.S. attorney David Weiss, he's the U.S. attorney for Delaware, had full authority, complete authority, ultimate authority. He could indict wherever, whenever and on whatever charges he wanted. More authority than he could ever need to prosecute Hunter Biden. Attorney General Merrick Garland announces on a summer Friday afternoon, he's now feeling the need to appoint Weiss as a special counsel.

You know, the very same special counsel role that they told us was less powerful than the role that David Weiss had the day before Friday. That's what these two, Weiss included, have been telling us for months. If you pay attention to this show, to this show, you know all this. But the average citizen out there has no idea. There are actually really smart people who I know and respect who are out there saying, this is devastating development for the Bidens. No, try to pay attention. This is an ass covering act by Merrick Garland meant to keep control of an investigation, meant to keep control. Weiss was supposed to testify before Congress. Guess what? Now he doesn't have to, now that he's a special counsel. He was going to go and have to explain all these statements

that he's made, that Merrick Garland have made, that haven't totally dovetailed with what the IRS whistleblowers have been telling us. This is an enormous CYA move. Merrick Garland is trying to maintain control of this entire thing. And Weiss has proven himself a very obedient little puppy. He's a good little puppy. He's been a good little puppy all along. I'm sorry, but that's the truth. He's accused by these IRS whistleblowers of protecting Hunter Biden at every turn, most egregiously by allowing the statute of limitations to expire on the most serious charges, not withstanding the fact that Hunter's own lawyers went to the DOJ and said, we'll extend the

statute of limitations. We will agree to that. And the DOJ said, no need. We're just going to let him expire. That's what happened. That's just like to name one thing that this guy Weiss already did, which is, of course, what earned him his new title of special counsel. He can be trusted. He's not going to sell out the Bidens like some truly independent

person outside the DOJ, which is what you're supposed to do, might do. Democrats, they just cannot seem to figure out why the Republicans are not happy. What do you mean? You want a special counsel? You got it. OK, they wanted a special counsel, number one, from outside the government who could be trusted. But number two, they wanted it before the House GOP started its investigation, before the Republicans won the House. This was more and more important because they had no one investigating. Now the Republicans have taken control of the House and they're actually doing a good job of getting to the bottom of this. And suddenly, just as they start to zero in on what's happening. oh, now we need a special counsel. I mean, honestly, I realize it's confusing,

probably not to the listeners of this show, but for the average citizen who's not paying attention is going about living their lives. They don't know. They're like, oh, that's bad. Special counsel. Good for good for Joe Biden and Merrick Garland for appointing the guy. No, that's not it. Join me now to discuss all of it and the potential impact this development has on the 2024 presidential race. My old friend, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, one of the smartest men in politics, always has been. Mr. Speaker, great to see you again. Well, it's terrific to be back with you. And I really like the way your show has developed. And I'm honored to have a chance to be on with you.

Oh, thank you so much. And you've got a new book out, which we're going to talk about as well. But it's great to see you. And I meant what I said. You know, my brother is a very smart guy, and my brother always said, Newt Gingrich is one of those guys where you just stop what you're doing and you listen, because you always learn something. You always have something new to add, and it's always based on facts.

So, pleasure to have you back. So what do you make on that? I guess I'll just play the soundbite for those who didn't hear it last Friday. Merrick Garland announcing this new, exciting development of David Weiss, now not just U.S. attorney, but special counsel in the Hunter Biden investigation. Listen. As I said before, Mr. Weiss would be permitted to continue his investigation, take any investigative steps he wanted. Mr. Weiss has told Congress that he has been granted ultimate authority over this matter. On Tuesday of this week, Mr. Weiss advised me that in his judgment, his investigation had reached a stage at which he should continue his work as a special counsel. I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint him.

He is so dishonest, Newt. I mean, this guy, he's just brushing by the actual history between those two and what they've said publicly because he realizes people are living their lives and not parsing through their previous statements today. Well, look, I think part of what makes this all so difficult is that the scale of both Biden corruption and Department of Justice corruption is so enormous that we keep trying to take it back to the norm. We keep trying to say, gee, it can't really be this sick. But it is. I just have to start with that assumption. These are dishonest people who believe that the rest of us are so stupid that if they just play as though they're being honest, then we'll go along with it or we'll be powerless because they have the presidency, the Justice Department, the FBI. They can rig the game. And this is just the most recent example, although it is done so stupidly that you have to wonder what's going on. First of all, technically, Weiss can't be a special counsel because the special counsel in law has to be somebody coming from outside of the Justice Department. Second, to take a guy who has almost been, you know,

a comedy act. I mean, you mentioned earlier, he allowed the time to expire when they could try certain, the biggest of the tax problems, if that was done in the private sector, he would have been sued for malpractice. I mean, it's one of the most basic, obvious things. This is a guy whose plea deal was so bad that it collapsed in court in public. And this is a guy who's managed to avoid prosecuting Hunter Biden, despite the fact that the FBI's had the laptop since 2019. And that, in fact, people know there are a whole range of good reasons for prosecuting him.

And that's the guy that Merrick Garland picks to become the special counsel. I mean, the whole thing is such an act of utter contempt for all the rest of us that it's, I think, kind of astonishing. So why does he do it now? Is it to retain control? Is it to shut down Weiss testifying in front of the House? What do you think led Merrick Garland to do this on Friday? Well, I'm not totally sure.

I think part of it is that Weiss is beginning to realize that he's going to have to actually try Hunter Biden, that they're not going to get to a pleading, not one that Biden will accept and not one that he can offer. So from that standpoint, he's in a different position. I also think that they're going to try to use this to shield Weiss from testifying, but that doesn't necessarily work. If this becomes, and this is where I think Speaker Kevin McCarthy is exactly right, if this becomes a matter of impeachment inquiry, they can bring him in, even though he's currently on the case, and they can compel him to testify. He can plead the fifth, but that's pretty weird to have a Justice Department lawyer pleading the fifth.

But I think that as the Republicans dig deeper and become more determined, and as the country begins to realize how sick the whole thing is, it's going to make it more difficult for whites to avoid coming in, and frankly, for Merrick Garland to avoid coming in. Remember, in Watergate, the only cabinet officer ever to go to jail was the Attorney General, John Mitchell, and he went to jail for obstruction of justice. I suspect if we get access, which we will eventually, to all the various emails between Merrick Garland and Weiss in the White House, we're going to find out that Merrick Garland is blatantly seeking to obstruct justice and is vulnerable following John Mitchell and becoming the second U.S. attorney general to end up in jail for obstruction.

I mean, we've heard some rattlings about that from Ted Cruz and others about whether Merrick Garland lied under oath about the authority that had been granted to David Weiss and that this is just the big this is what really is a falling on the sword. It's sort of an admission, if you read it, that the critics have been right all along. He did not empower David Weiss. Both of them have been misleading us about it. And just as David Weiss was going to have to go and do the full throated under oath testimony about whether he went to the U.S. attorneys, which we know he did in California and D.C. and asked them to prosecute charges only to get stiff armed and then not be able to bring those charges.

And then the statute of limitations expired right as he was going to have to do all that. He gets this new title, which the two of them been telling us all along is unnecessary. He's got more power than a special counsel. And people like Jonathan Turley, smart lawyers who I respect, say he actually does not have to go in front of Congress now. And you're pointing out, even if he does go, he's got escape clauses that, you know, may or may not be proof fruitful for him. But all of this, it tells me what it tells me that he's in Merrick Garland's pocket. The whistleblower said that the whistleblower said David Weiss had no real interest in investigating Hunter Biden. The word of the investigation every turn told Hunter Biden's lawyers when they were about to raid his storage closet, go interview him and other witnesses, kept giving him the heads up so that they couldn't get any real evidence.

Let the statute of limitations required expire, misled us in his testimony that he gave to Congress and we could go down the list. And then he tried to strike the sweetheart deal in this in this Delaware federal court, which the judge caught him. She caught him at. And that's when the plea deal fell apart. And now what we get, Mr. Speaker, is an announcement that, yes, the parties are in impasse on a negotiation to stave off the remaining charges against Hunter tax and B.S. charges. I mean, the ones that they seem to be pursuing, not the real meat, most of which have expired. But they're going to pull the case away from that hero, Delaware federal court judge. And they want to refile now in D.C. or California, where, again, they already tried, according to the whistleblowers, and were rebuffed

by the sitting U.S. attorneys there. And David Weiss did nothing about it. He did nothing about it. So, I mean, the main goal here is let's get the hell away from the from the Delaware federal district court judge who was on to us. Well, look, I think that they are frankly just trying to run the clock out. They would like to never get to trial before the next election and simply wait everything out. They would like to never get to trial before the next election and simply wait everything out. And if you'll notice, part of what this does is for those people who are not deeply committed left-wing Democrats, it just makes really clear the double standard of the persecution of Donald Trump when the protection of the Bidens, I mean, and frankly, the protection of Hillary Clinton. I mean, the double standard is now so blatantly

obvious that historians will someday write about it, I think, with a sense of awe that they really thought the American people were so stupid that they could have this kind of open hypocrisy and not pay for it. And I think, in fact, what you're seeing is more and more people, and Jonathan Turley is certainly an example. Andy McCarthy is another example. Very senior lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, who are saying flatly, this stuff is all rigged. It's all phony. Much of it is beyond the law and should be illegal. And that you're dealing with people in charge of the law who are, in fact, outside the law. Yeah. Who are themselves behaving corruptly. Not for nothing, but on the point I just made about how the whistleblower said David Weiss and his team were thwarting them, these tax investigators, really smart guys,

at every turn on their investigation of Hunter. We will not be looking into Joe Biden, they were told. We will not be discussing, quote, the big guy. You will not be asking questions about any of the Biden grandchildren, including the adult grandchildren who had bank accounts they believe were receiving improper payments and whose finances were involved in this whole scheme and meant to and trying to protect Hunter, as I said, with respect to the search of his storage closet, with respect to the witness interviews that the FBI was going to do. And just this morning, House Oversight released a transcript of an FBI supervisory agent who backed up those two IRS whistleblowers. The IRS whistleblower,

they were on our show, the FBI supervisory agent. So, you know, different investigator backed them up entirely. And one of the highlights from this agent reads as follows. The agent said, quote, I was informed that FBI headquarters had contacted Secret Service headquarters and had made a notification that we sought to interview Hunter before they went there. They did not wish for him to have a went there. They did not wish for him to have a heads up. They did not wish for the Secret Service to know. And sure enough, them notifying the Secret Service alerted Hunter and shut down the interview. They did not get their interview. And then the question was put to this FBI agent. In your career of 20 years, have you

ever been told that you had to wait outside of a target's home until they contacted you? Agent, not that I recall. So not surprisingly, this has been happening for a long time, all on David Weiss's watch. I don't have any high hopes of what's going to happen now that he has a new title. But here's the message from the House Dems, who have been trying to tell us there's no there there all along. Dan Goldman, who is defender in chief for the Bidens, apparently, I guess he doesn't recognize what his proper role is just to represent the citizens of New York State, his district.

He says the following. The whole thing needs to stop. No, no more investigations of even Hunter. Listen to stop. No, no more investigations of even Hunter. Listen to this. You can sing all you want and make all sorts of accusations. But the fact of the matter is that President Biden, there's been no evidence to show that he's been involved in anything. And so Hunter Biden will be treated by the Department of Justice as he should be. But Congress needs to stop investigating a private citizen. Okay, so you used to be the House Speaker. Does he have a point that Hunter Biden's a private citizen? Leave it to the hands of the Justice Department. I mean, first of all, when the

Democrats have been in charge, they're pretty cheerful about investigating private citizens, private businesses, the sudden notion of, oh, he should be a protected class because he's a private citizen. It's nonsense. This is a guy who lives in the White House, flies on Air Force One, invokes the name of his father when he was vice president and now president, deals with money coming from Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, China, and Romania, and we're supposed to pretend that he's just an everyday normal private citizen being persecuted by the government? It stretches credulity. The fact is, the Bidens ran and are running basically a criminal organization. They were taking money from all sorts of foreign countries.

They had established over 20 shell companies to try to hide the flow of the money. They were doing it based not only on Joe Biden's name, but remember, Joe Biden goes to Ukraine and says directly to the president of Ukraine, if you don't fire the prosecutor who is threatening Burisma, the company that had hired Hunter, I'm going to make sure you lose a billion dollars in foreign aid, and we're going to work to block a $40 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund. Now, that's much more than just the brand. That is an act which clearly implicates Joe Biden in this whole process. Then you look at the two dinners at Cafe Milano, the dinner in France, where the vice president, then vice president Biden, happens to be having dinner with Hunter Biden's business associates.

And we're supposed to believe that Joe Biden's not involved? I commend Chairman Comer for very aggressively pursuing the money sources, working on the bank accounts. I think they will eventually peel back all the layers and we will realize what an amazing multimillion dollar ripoff this was. But remember, this isn't anything new. Hillary Clinton was making millions and millions out of misusing public trust and then deleted 32,000 emails with no consequence. Obama is the person who actually corrupted the Justice Department. And so here's Joe Biden looking, thinking, gosh, the Obama Justice Department is not going to prosecute any Democrat. And Hillary's making all this money. Why can't I have some? And so he took kind of a Delaware-sized version of Hillary's much bigger corruption.

And I have zero doubt that from the money given to the University of Pennsylvania by the Chinese, the money given to the University of Delaware, the various businesses that were giving money, the Bidens are wallowing in corruption. And they're counting on the rest of us not believing it because the elite news media is so terrified of Donald Trump that they refuse to cover in any honest way what's happening with the Biden family. What do you make of it? Because right now, I mean, what these Democrats keep saying is there's no evidence Joe did any of this. There's no evidence. Well, we know why there's no proof in the smoking gun document. Number one, that's not generally how crime is done or corruption. And number two, they won't investigate. They just

went through with the IRS whistleblowers were saying they got shut down from looking into anything having to do with Joe Biden. And they're the ones who have been looking. And even in that alleged FBI forum claiming that he'd accepted a bribe, the state was included saying they'll never find it. I've we've covered it over so many different bank accounts. They'll never be. So who knows? We don't they haven't investigated is the is the real response. Yeah, go ahead. good in making a decision that favored private interest over public interest. You have to ask yourself, why was Hunter on Air Force Two going into China? Why was Joe Biden at a dinner with a Chinese billionaire and his son, who were supposed to be told, oh, there's really nothing inappropriate about it? Why was Joe Biden at a dinner with the widow of the mayor of Moscow, who then sent three and a half million dollars to Hunter? I mean, does any serious person believe that Hunter Biden was so smart, so clever, knew so much that people just wanted to lavish money on him?

Of course not. I mean, you really have to suspend any capacity for thinking in order to believe that all this money just happened to pour in to the Biden family. And Joe had nothing to do of it. It's indisputable that he allowed his family members to to become millionaires while he was the sitting vice president by taking payments from corporations who were getting no value from said family members other than the connection to Joe Biden. To me, this is on Barack Obama and Joe Biden. And it's almost stunning to me that we weren't able to, you know, debate this in the lead up to 2020 before he won the first time. Never mind right now where they're running a rope-a-dope to try to get us to stop from talking about it in 2024. Well, you know, I think we underestimate the depth of corruption that's involved. And again, I want to go back to Hillary because she was so much more blatant. It's very hard to argue that erasing 32,000 emails

is not, in fact, an indication of behavior. It's very hard to argue that having your staff take a hammer to literally physically destroy the hard drive on a computer is in an effort to obstruct justice. No one has ever thoroughly investigated the Russian purchase of 20% of America's uranium while the Russian company was giving the Clinton Foundation $37 million. I mean, she was Secretary of State. The committee she's on had to approve the sale. They approved the sale. The Russians get one-fifth of all our uranium. And she happens to get $37 million, and it never became a serious problem.

You can just go on and on about this stuff. And then you get to the Bidens. And by any reasonable standard, what you're dealing with here is a clearly corrupt system that was cleverly designed to minimize being caught. And that is gradually crumbling because the House Republicans are showing that they have the courage and the tenacity to just stick to it and gradually pull this stuff out into the open. And every time they pull something new out into the open, it stinks even more. So how does it work now? If Comer wants to get more bank account information, for example, can David Weiss, as special counsel, the guy allegedly running Heard on the whole Hunter investigation, say, no, no, no, Bank of America or whomever, you cannot produce that stuff to Comer because I'm running, I'm from the DOJ, and I'm telling you that would interfere with my investigation. So, I mean, how much of a, you know, how much thwarting can he do of the Comer investigation? It might have to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

But the fact is, under our system of a separation of powers, Congress has the right to investigate the executive branch, period. Furthermore, if they want to play that tough, my position would be quit funding the offices. I mean, just as of September 30th, they can't operate if they don't have any money. And I think if you really want, if they want to play really hardball, the most powerful tool the House Republicans have is just defund them and say you're not going to have a penny to operate on after September 1, which could be applied both to Weiss and to Merrick Garland and to Jack Smith. I mean, these are clearly such blatantly corrupt actions that the Congress has an obligation to defend the American people when you have an executive branch which has grown corrupt. It's an absolute obligation. And I think that the courts ultimately would uphold that obligation. And I haven't seen any evidence yet because the bank records are coming out of the Treasury obligation. And I haven't seen any evidence yet because the bank

records are coming out of the Treasury Department. And the Treasury Department's been relatively cooperative so far. So my hunch is, again, because think about this. There's a pretty good sign now that if you're really defending the Bidens, you may be on the wrong side of history. And now there's some people out there, and this is why you get these whistleblowers, who are saying, well, you know, I think I'd rather be on the right side of history. And now there's some people out there, and this is why you get these whistleblowers who are saying, well, you know, I think I'd rather be on the right side of history and risk reprisal from the people that I think are going to go down. And I think you're going to get more of that. Not just Joe Biden, because, you know, we were talking about Ted Cruz earlier. He's been saying Merrick Garland may need to be impeached himself, like, or indicted, that Merrick Garland may get indicted for lying under oath to Congress about the powers that he did or did not grant

to David Weiss, given what the IRS whistleblowers testified to and have a memo reflecting with David Weiss saying he's not special counsel. He doesn't have the powers that Merrick Garland was telling Congress he did. And just as they're about to get to the bottom of it with an actual David Weiss witness appearance, Merrick Garland makes him special counsel. So Merrick Garland could be in individual trouble. And then we've got Joe Biden and the acts he took as vice president. All this relates to as vice president, what he's done as president. We don't know. I mean, he's been certainly very soft in many ways on the Chinese. He's been very supportive of Ukraine. These are all the company or all the countries that Hunter was taking money from. Romania haven't looked into it, but they also were paying Hunter's bills. Uzbekistan, I mean, I could go down the list, but none of these places

needed Hunter's legal skills. So that now more and more you're hearing we're going to begin an impeachment inquiry. So just explain to us what's the difference between an impeachment inquiry and actual impeachment proceedings? Well, the House will have to vote to establish the inquiry, but I think the evidence is building that the House probably will vote to set up an inquiry. What that does is it broadens the ability of the House to issue subpoenas and to command people in the executive branch to show up and testify. So it dramatically strengthens the ability of the House Republicans to dig at getting to the truth and makes it much harder for the Biden administration to block them from that kind of approach. And I think Speaker

McCarthy is very wise. They should not try to rush to an impeachment when they don't yet have the evidence and they don't have the country convinced. The only successful real effort to drive a president from public office was Nixon. And that was really because ultimately the country became convinced that what he had done was unsustainable. And so I think they need to keep working away, doing exactly what Chairman Comer's doing, and what Chairman Jordan and Chairman Smith have been doing, but to broaden their ability to command people to come and testify. And I don't know the case law on this. I'm a historian, not a lawyer. But I think it'd be very hard for Weiss to refuse to show up. He might not talk about his immediate current activities, but he can't avoid talking about

his past activities. And he can't hide with any notion of those somehow will weaken his case. So I think you will see the Congress find a way to bring him in. I look forward to the moment where somebody asks him, you know, you and Merrick Garland told us you had more power in your status working for Garland as the U.S. attorney, as the investigator on this case than a special counsel would have. So why the designation? Do you have less power now? By definition, I mean, isn't it just a tautology then that you now have less power than you had last week or before this designation? Let him explain this, this. They're treating us like morons and it's infuriating, you know, because the media, of course, goes along with it.

They're sitting back just saying, oh, special counsel Republicans got what they wanted without actually doing honest reporting. It's you know, it's infuriating as always. And then you've got these Democrats out there like, let the justice system do its job. Let the system run its course. All right, stand by because what we'd really like to talk to Newt Gingrich about is the march to the majority. That's his book, The March to the Majority, the real story of the Republican Revolution. But the reason that this is important, right, because he led it back in 1994 and the contract with America and the whole bit. The reason this is important is because it's tight. As you know, the Republicans barely won the House the last time around and they could lose it again.

And then what happens? Does Newt Gingrich have a plan for the Republicans to retain power in at least one House of Congress? And what lessons can be learned from how he did it. Stand by. Here with me today, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. He's the author of the great new book, March to the Majority, the real story of the Republican Revolution. And what a revolution it was. It was led by our guest today.

And he's got some thoughts on how the Republicans can retain power in the House, which I really if let's say Joe Biden wins reelection, I'll feel much better if the Republicans retain power in the House. But if if they lose it, I mean, we're done. We're in a lot of trouble. So what are your thoughts? Well, look, I'm basically a student of Ronald Reagan. I worked with him before he became president. I worked with him as a member of Congress while he was president. And I really believe ideas matter. I believe that having big ideas, big solutions, helping people, you know, this country is a mess right now, whether it's the fact you can't afford

the cost of living, or it's the fact that you have open borders with millions of people pouring in, or it's the level of crime we're dealing with. Every time you turn around, the school systems in some of our biggest cities just plain don't work, produce children who can't read and write and do arithmetic. So I think that you have to have a party committed to solutions, more than just investigating Biden, more than just fighting over politics, but thinking through how do we make America work again and how do we take some of our biggest problems and turn them into opportunities and solutions? We did that with Reagan in 1980 in the middle of the Carter disaster. He came in and he had very specific, positive ideas. We built on that. We stood on his shoulders in 1994 and created the Contract with America, which I describe in March the Majority, because I think it's a playbook for today.

It's not just history, but it's something that Republicans in the House, the Senate and the Congress and the presidential races can pick up and say, here is a model that works. We had not been a majority for 40 years. We not only won in 1994, but by governing in a very positive way and offering solutions, which ultimately led to the only four balanced budgets of your lifetime. Think about that. Only four balanced budgets in your lifetime, and they all occurred when the House Republicans were in charge. The result was we reelected. We were the first reelected House Republican majority since 1928. That shifted the balance of power in Washington. We briefly lost power in 2006. Four years later, we came back with a huge victory, basically on the theme of where are the jobs? Again, a big idea, a big question. And I would argue that Republicans need to, in 2024, focus in on the things that matter to the American people.

And while investigating Biden is important, and we have to do it because it's our duty, much more important for the election. We have to offer solutions on the cost of gasoline, the cost of food, on housing opportunities for young people. We're finding it now almost impossible. The average young person finds it almost impossible to go out and buy a house. We have to find a solution to the drug crisis, which is killing over 100,000 people a year. Twice as many Americans die from drug overdoses annually as died in the entire Vietnam War. So there are things we've got to focus on that are real. We have to come up with solutions. And then we have to win the argument. We have to explain why our solution is better than what the Democrats want to do. And if we do that, I think we could have a shockingly big victory.

And in 2025, we could actually begin to reform government and get things done in a serious way to get us back to a time of prosperity and safety and opportunity for people. You're so right, because we can get pulled into these dramatics around the Hunter Biden story, the possible impeachment of Joe Biden, the Trump indictments. And it's not to say those aren't real stories. They are real stories. But we can get pulled into them at the expense of some of the issues you just ticked off. And we were reminded, I think as a country about the importance of in particular economic issues by a guy named Oliver Anthony this past weekend. I don't know if you've seen this guy's video, but he's a farmer down in, um, in Virginia who had never even shot a video of him singing not on his iphone you know it's like a you know working class guy who's trying to make it on the farm he's got three dogs

who likes to make music but on this particular video he did he posted it it went i mean completely viral it it took over like number one in the billboard charts. It ousted Jason Aldean's song, Not in a Small Town or Try That in a Small Town. And now this guy who nobody knew a few days ago has become an international superstar because of the way he sings this song and the lyrics that are in it. I'm just going to give an example because there's a reason it's resonating with so many people. And I think it gets to exactly what you just said. Take a listen to Oliver Anthony singing Rich Men, North of Richmond. Peace. Lord, it's a damn shame what the world's gotten to for people like me, people like you. Pretty extraordinary, very catchy tune and, you know, sort of resonates in the soul. Both of those songs that are just sort of skyrocketed, both of them reflect the sense of alienation. That here we are, we're everyday, we're average Americans, and that there are things going on that we don't like, that challenge and threaten our lives, and that we don't trust the people in power to care about us. And I think that that's a very deep part of what's going on in America today, is this sense, which in a way gets you back to Merrick Garland and the whole process

of a corrupt system. But the notion that the people who have power, including financial power, actually don't operate on behalf of America. They operate selfishly on behalf of themselves, and they leave everybody else behind. And I think what he's tapping into is a very deep sense that he's cutting through and telling the truth in a way that you very seldom have people do. And I think, frankly, that's part of what has powered Donald Trump's entire political career. The people out there who feel the most alienated think, you know, whatever his flaws, at least he's standing up fighting for them. And it's fascinating to watch this deep momentum building in the country at large. And I think when people like Joe Biden and Merrick Garland display open contempt for the American people, they are increasing the number of Americans who say,

I got it. You're the kind of guys we got to get rid of. That's the thing is I do think they're, oh, you know, he's he's on drugs. He was on drugs. That's really what this is about. Don't be so mean. He had a drug problem like a lot of Americans. That's failing. People are starting to get it. People who are on drugs don't have access to the sitting vice president who can cut deals that get them 20 million dollars, help them cut deals and access 20 million dollars. And they sit back laughing at us while they flout the law. I mean, I think the average Joe at home understands Uncle Joe Biden is not actually the avuncular, kind, sweet, you know, just scrappy guy from Scranton that he he would have us believe. But let me let me shift the discussion a little, because one of your best moments I've covered it. We all covered it. It was amazing, was at a presidential debate. And you got hit because an ex-wife had made some allegation about your marriage and sort of what you had allegedly proposed before a divorce. And John King of CNN opened the debate with a question to you about her allegations.

Those of us in media, I'm sure John King cannot forget the response. Here's just a little bit of it down memory lane because we're going to talk about the debates. Watch. Would you like to take some time to respond to that? No, but I will. I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.

Standing ovation for our listening audience. And devastatingly, CNN control room has control over whether they cut to the anchor or not. For some reason, they hung poor John King out to dry by cutting to a shot of him looking completely shell-shocked. I think the control room may have been so shocked that it didn't occur to them until about two minutes later. No, don't cut to John King. It was a spontaneous, instinctive response. I mean, we hadn't planned that response. But it just struck me that the average American would understand.

And frankly, a lot of the whole sense of fake news and a lot of the hostility to the news media, I think, was triggered by my campaign in 12 by being willing to tell the truth and take people head on. And I think John King never fully recovered from it. Listen to this, Newt. My executive producer, Steve Krakauer, used to work for CNN and Fox among others. But he's just telling me he was in the control room that night at that moment, and everybody was just shocked. They didn't know what they were doing. You really threw everyone off balance because they had been a lot of years of Republicans just shrugging their shoulders at the media bias and being on their heels with their tails between their legs on whatever the latest scandal was that they dreamed up that, you know, GOP ears would have to answer for me while it was ignored on the damn side.

But no one could no one called attention to it the way you did. Just so powerful, effective, sliced his legs out from under him. But it hasn't changed anything about media bias. And the GOPers now are still dealing with an even more biased media. And Trump is debating on whether

to go to this first and maybe second Republican debate. So how do you see the media and the debates that are upcoming as affecting, you know, your hopes for what's going to happen in the House and at the presidency? Well, look, Reagan had the same challenges. If you're a conservative, you have to start, and Theodore White wrote about this as early as the making of the president in 1968. He had an entire chapter on media bias all the way back then.

I think you have to start with an assumption that you have to find ways to communicate, partly just by repetition, despite the fact that the New York Times won't cover you honestly, the Washington Post won't cover you honestly, and therefore the three big networks won't cover you honestly. The Washington Post won't cover you honestly. And therefore, the three big networks won't cover you honestly. And you just have to plow past them. And you have to keep repeating what you're saying. And there are moments like that when it's live and you're on the air, and you can win those fights pretty decisively. But the American people engage in a long-term conversation. You know, it's not any one day or any one week. Remember, Reagan emerges when there's no Fox News, there's no Rush Limbaugh, there's no talk radio on the conservative side. But by sheer constant effort, he gradually broke through. It took him from October of 1964, when he gave a great speech for Barry Goldwater that was televised nationally,

to 1980 to win. And he said one time he didn't change much, but the world came around. And I think that was the way we approached it in March to the majority. I tried to outline the 16 year campaign, 16 years to create a Republican majority in the House. And then the four years of successfully negotiating with Bill Clinton to get conservative reforms adopted. And I think we can do it again. But we have to recognize when you get up in the morning, you have to assume that you are communicating into a hurricane that's opposed to you. And that hurricane is the elite media.

Absolutely right. Yeah. And the book is full of honest revelations about where you think the House went wrong. There was an interesting passage about overestimating the interest in the Monica Lewinsky scandal because, you know, it had everything. But realizing that actually wasn't really helping people's pocketbook issues and they weren't as aghast by what Clinton did as as maybe the House Republicans were. So there may be some lessons in there for for those, you know, making similar decisions today. I mean, I I don't know. I I worry that the media has gotten so biased like and Trump did that. And it was great. Like Trump exposed their bias in a way that had never been exposed before. But now they've almost leaned in. Now they've almost just completely embraced it. You know, the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop and whatever. I mean, I just, I worry that they're another player in this

election. Well, they are a player and they're a player on the side of the left. And they're absolutely terrified that Trump may win. You know, Clarissa and I, when she was the ambassador of the Vatican, we took some time off and went up to Turin, which has the second best Egyptian museum outside of Egypt for historic reasons. And we had this guide taking us around. And there's an Italian guide in an Egyptian museum. And he says, you see that statue over there? People are going to tell you this story. He said, fake news. And I thought to myself, my God, I mean, here is this Italian guide who picked up Trump's language because it somehow fit. It's very simple language. And I think that that's one of the reasons that all these indictments have only strengthened Trump because people

shrug them off and go, these are fake indictments being reported by fake news. And it's creating, I don't think people on the left understand this, this is creating a real crisis of our constitutional system. You cannot undermine the rule of law and expect to retain a stable system. And what they've been doing, whether it's Jack Smith, or it's Weiss, or frankly, it's Mary Garland, what they have consistently been doing, including senior FBI, has so eroded the public's faith in the concept of justice that they are in a sense lumped in with the news media as people who are in effect the enemies of freedom. And that's very dangerous for the United States as a country. Now, I would be remiss if I didn't ask you your thoughts on the GOP field this time around.

You backed Trump in 16 and again in 20. Of course, there was no Republican challenger in 20. But now he's right back there fighting for the nomination. What do you make of the current field and who do you want? Well, listen, I couldn't help but laugh. We had campaigns. She'd gone to college in Iowa at Lutheran College, and we'd campaigned many times at the state fair, which is, as you know, one of the great political adventures in

America. Hundreds of thousands of Iowans show up, politicians show up. And there was a moment the other day when Governor DeSantis, who's a very good governor of Florida, but not particularly good presidential candidate. Governor DeSantis is making a a very good governor of Florida, but not particularly good presidential candidate. Governor DeSantis is making a speech and all of a sudden overhead and frankly, total violation of the rules is this huge airplane with Trump's name on it. And the crowd goes crazy. So here he is, the guy trying to be the competitor. And suddenly he's faced with Donald J. Trump overhead in a way that nobody can ignore.

And about a half hour later, they've landed and Trump shows up. And, you know, my sense is that the Trump team is better this time, much better than it was either in 2016 or 20. And my guess is that Trump will be the Republican nominee. And that despite everything the news media and the Justice Department does, the odds are at least even money he's the next president of the United States. All right. Don't have much time left, but if he becomes the nominee, how do you like his odds of helping Republicans keep the house?

Because the worry from some is he'll lose and that the GOP will lose the house along with him. He will turn out a tidal wave of voters who are deeply alienated from what they see as corruption in Washington and as economic disasters. And I suspect they will win the Senate and increase the number of seats pretty dramatically in the House. Wow. Newt Gingrich, you heard it here. The book is called March to the Majority, the real story of the Republican Revolution. He led it. He knows how to do it. And it's well worth your time. Great to see you, sir. Hope you come back. Nice to be with you. Don't forget, folks, you can find The Megyn Kelly Show live on Sirius XM, Triumph Channel, 111 every weekday at noon east. And subscribe at YouTube if you want to watch us too now we turn to kelly's court with two stellar panelists today there's a lot to get to including brian kolberger finally providing his quote alibi plus mounting legal trouble for lizzo as more of

her former dancers come out against her and And it looks like she's been booted from any consideration of performing at the Super Bowl, which apparently she was under prior to all this. Joining us now to break it all down, Viva Frye, lawyer and YouTuber and Peter Tragos, host of The Lawyer You Know. Peter, it's Tragos, isn't it? Sorry. Great to see you both. Thanks for being back on. And I want to start with Brian Kohlberger because the case is so chilling and we've been waiting. You know, they had to say whether they were going to provide an alibi for the guy. That's that's required. So the defense can give notice to the prosecution. The prosecution has a chance to look into it to figure out if you really do have an alibi.

What if you have an alibi witness? I mean, that'd be great. Okay, fine. We've arrested the wrong guy. We'll keep looking. This, Viva, is the lamest alibi, using the air quotes, I've ever seen. He was out driving the night in question. That was out driving. Look,

the case itself, to the extent it relies on a lot of circumstantial or technological evidence, a lot of people drive alone and not everybody is always in the presence of somebody to account for where they were. So it is what it is. I presume he might have cellular data which might show where he was driving, but we'll see. It's not the strongest, most airtight alibi. That being said, they're dealing with a lot of technology information in this case to come to the charges in the first place.

We'll see where it pans out. But it might be one of those cases where they need to find somebody. They found somebody. It could very well be he might have a legitimate defense. It might be totally innocent. We'll see. I guess it's it's possible, but unlikely. But, Peter, I don't understand why this was even submitted as a quote alibi. I mean, you can go to court and say he didn't do it. He was driving his car that night, but that that's all he was doing was like, how is this an alibi? And is she just the defense lawyer is named Ann Taylor. Is Ann Taylor just looking for headlines using the

word? He has an alibi. He has an alibi. So I would say, no, she's not looking for headlines using the word, he has an alibi, he has an alibi? So I would say no, she's not looking for headlines, which is why the first response to the demand for alibi was kind of vague in the fact that they'd come up with it through cross-examination and potentially the defendant's statements. So if she wanted to come up with headlines coming up with an alibi, she could have done it in the first filing, but the state then filed the motion to compel what is that alibi. So they said, listen, an alibi is simply he was not at the scene of the crime at the time the crime was committed. So therefore, if he's driving somewhere at that time, then that is technically an alibi. Now, what the rule actually requires is you provide the

corroborating materials or witness statements or evidence that shows you were not at the scene of the crime when the crime was committed. Now, if he had that, then what you mentioned off the top would probably be true. They'd let him go. They'd arrest somebody else. But because it is just his word, it is a weak alibi, but it is still an alibi that fits a lot of the state's evidence because we know they have evidence. He was out driving during this time, and therefore it kind of fits in nicely with what the state has, even though a lot are going to see it as a weak alibi.

I shouldn't have assumed that the audience is familiar with Brian Kohlberger by name. He's the man accused of killing four college students at the University of Idaho in November of 2022 as they slept or were inside their college apartment house and with a knife. The state's best evidence appears to be a knife sheath that the killer, we believe, left behind. It had traced DNA or touched DNA on it, which led them to Brian Kohlberger's father, who was in one of the genetic databases, though Brian, the son, was not. But once they've got you, once they have the dad, they're steps away from figuring out who in the dad's orbit is close to University of Idaho. Up came Brian Kohlberger. And the car, Viva, will be very important.

Him driving around is one of the things mentioned in the indictment as the reason he was arrested. They've got the car on videotape. And I think they'll probably, by this point, have all the GPS records too, right?

I mean, I don't know, because it's a 2015. Did we have GPS in every car back then? I don't know. Well, no, they have the photo images of the white car somewhere. Whether or not he had a cell phone on with him at the time is going to be definitive. I mean, if he's going to say I was driving alone and I didn't take my phone with me at this time, that alibi might, you know, as far as reasonable people go, lose credibility. If he's driving in his car and he's got his phone and if there's GPS tracking on the phone, it might be a good alibi. Who knows? But there was another element of evidence that people might not be familiar with. That was a poll or a question that he had asked on Facebook about

how you, I forget exactly how he phrased the question, how you'd respond if you committed a crime. Kelly, Megan, do you remember? Yeah, it was something about like what what made you do it or like your motivation while you were committing the crime? How did it make you feel? But that's a very I mean, I'm I believe this guy did it just for the record, but that I'm told by criminologists is actually a very common question amongst criminologists and criminology students of criminals. That's their whole business of figuring out how they think. True. I mean, as far as the narrative goes, it certainly does depict something like a Dexter-esque type individual here, testing the waters and showing off his criminality while he's planning to do something horrible beforehand.

But whether or not he definitely has been painted as looking guilty, looking suspicious, fits all of the check marks for scary individuals, where I like to take a step back and just look at the evidence and say, look, this is a horrific crime. In order to appease the public concern, the public terror, you got to find somebody.

There have been cases in the past where they have hastily accused or found someone who looks like would be a good person to charge to quell public concern. Whether or not that happens to be the case here, everybody should take a step back from the court of public opinion and look at the actual hard evidence. Not that they don't have any of it. I mean, I have they have to know why we have to debate it anymore after we find out that when the cops raided his house in the Poconos, where he was staying with his parents post-November, you know, right around the Christmas holiday time, which is when they arrested him. They burst in at four in the morning and he was wearing gloves, disposing of his personal

trash and a little Ziploc baggies, which he'd been throwing out in the neighbor's trash for the past couple of nights when the FBI had been watching him. Guilty, guilty. It doesn't make it. It doesn't look good. It doesn't look good. But now, now, now, maybe there's another explanation for all of this, or maybe he knew that he was under surveillance. But I know what I think. But the important thing is to take a step back and actually just look at the hard evidence. It looks like they have enough definitely for probable cause. And an alibi. I was driving.

Nobody knows where I was. People will take that for what it's worth. And there might be a connection. Peter, if this had been a crime where, OK, it took place inside a dorm and Brian Kohlberger lived in that dorm, he, in fact, was attending as a Ph.D. student at the neighboring university. But let's just say these four students were murdered in a dorm that he was in. And his alibi was, I was out driving, something that removes him from the crime scene. OK, now I'm listening. Do you have something that proves that? You got GPS, you got pictures showing that your car was being driven by you and was nowhere near the actual crime scene. That's one thing. The allegation in the indictment is,

indeed, he was driving his car. He drove it right over to this house in which these four students lived, killed them, and turned his phone off for those critical hours, and then got back into his car and drove away at high speeds, which is on camera.

We can see not him, but we can see his car, what we believe to be his car, doing all this. So it's not a defense to say he was driving the car. The prosecution is going to try to prove he was driving his car. It's not abnormal for defenses to also fall in line with some of the undisputed evidence. And that's a way that you can give them some credibility. And a couple of things just to mention, number one, with the driving around as an alibi,

there is a way to set that up and explain that that is something that happened. It was habit type of evidence that the defense could produce. Do they have some kind of record of him turning off his phone for the late night drives? Well, just to interrupt you, they do have a witness. We heard her, Peter. We did hear the witness. The neighbor was on camera.

I think it was with Nancy Grace. Not 100% sure, but I think so. Where the neighbor said he likes to drive his car at night. The guy takes his car out at night. So sorry, keep going. Yeah. So that that's a way, I think, to give a lot more credibility to the fact that he was doing it this night. And it wasn't just some thing that was coincidental, because as has already been mentioned, a lot of this connecting to him is circumstantial. But there's also a lot he has to explain. The defense doesn't have a burden, but when there's this much evidence stacked up against you with the DNA on the sheet, yeah, it's touched DNA, but he still needs to explain that away. Just like I think the prosecution is going to have to explain the lack of DNA evidence in the car, in the house, in his apartment and everywhere.

What is the connection to these victims? Not to say there has to be one, but I think that would help strengthen the prosecution's case at this point. So a full disclosure, because I already told you what I think. I had Mark Garagos and Marsha Clark on a couple of months ago and we were debating this case. And those two had me very worried that this guy actually is going to be acquitted or has a very good chance of getting acquitted because we spent a lot of time in the point you just raised, Peter. Like it's one thing. Like I say, I don't know how you get past the Ziploc baggies as the cops burst in and you were going to dispose of it in the neighbor's trash. You know, not to mention the sheath. And they went in through like the touch DNA and it may not be relevant. And who

knows if the dad, you know, the fact that the dad may have touched the sheath to the knife in a store that wound up there. You never know. Blah, blah, blah. Touch DNA is not that reliable. All the stuff. But the fact that they're what's missing, Viva, what's missing, at least as far as we know, and the prosecution may have more, is what's really disturbing from those of us who would like to see this guy convicted. Megan, I don't know if you followed the Zachariah Anderson case out of Wisconsin. It was a guy got convicted of murder where they didn't have the body, they didn't have a murder weapon, and it involved a massive travel that would otherwise be virtually impossible to have traveled to and from within the timeline of the accused crime. In this case, so that's where the absence of video surveillance of the car in traffic might be exculpatory. In this case, it could conceivably be exculpatory if, I don't know, based on the alibi where he's going to say he was driving. I was driving in an area where it's impossible.

I could have gotten to and from the crime scene, done what I'm accused of having done, disposed of it and gotten back in the required time. So who knows where they're going to go with this? I don't know the details of where exactly he alleges he was driving. If I'm thinking the way a good criminal defense attorney might want to think is that he better be far away from the crime so that the argument is going to be I couldn't have gotten from where I was admittedly driving to where the crime allegedly took place or where i'm accused of having committed the crime um but other than that yeah it's it's this guy it's easy to frame him as the one who looks guilty by all accounts behavior is very suspicious i can think of from a criminal defense attorney why was he disposing of the stuff the night of that would be or when they when they

arrested him someone might argue that that's exculpatory if you were really the criminal he would have gotten rid of it you know well earlier after he had committed the crime. Arguments are going to go back and forth. I think it was the day's trash. He was trying to avoid because it's not it's not the dad's touch DNA on the knife sheath. Just to correct what I said a minute ago. It's his it's his. They got a hit in the genetic database tying whoever DNA that was to the dad, his dad, Kohlberger, in the Poconos. But since then, they've done a cheek swab of the actual suspect, Brian Kohlberger, and they tell us it's a dead on match. It's him.

It was a touch. DNA is not exactly like finding a bunch of saliva or semen or blood or something at the scene. It's sketchier. You know, there's I'm sure his his lawyer is going to say, who the hell knows? Maybe he maybe he touched the knife sheath in some store. Maybe they according to NBC, they have a record showing he ordered a knife that would go into this knife sheath from Amazon not long before the murders. And no one's been able to find the actual knife. That's bad. But he could also allege somebody stole the knife, like all the things. But the knife is their best evidence. that plus the what I said about the you know what they found him doing when they burst in the car, the car, they don't have a picture of him driving at Viva. That's one of the biggest problems. They just have a white Hyundai Elantra

that they think and they kind of changed the dates on it once they realized Kohlberger was probably their man is a 2015 Hyundai Elantra, though earlier they said they thought it was an earlier version of the car. Megan, not to get totally blackpilled on this, but remember, and like, you know, the evidence is so and I don't want to play devil's advocate for the sake of playing devil's advocate. I just now know what has happened in the past with the O.J. Simpson trial. In as much as I thought O.J. was guilty, it did occur that they were actually planting evidence. Maybe it was to satisfy the public concern that we need to get somebody,

he's guilty as hell, but we need to make sure that he gets convicted. In this case, how did his DNA get there? Cops have done worse things in the past. And that's not to say this guy's innocent. It's just to say, I have gotten to the point in my life where I approach all evidence

with a great degree of skepticism. And true, it's a 2050 say I have gotten to the point in my life where I approach all evidence with a great degree of skepticism and true it's a 2050 in a lot so I don't think there's gonna be GPS in the car if it turns out yeah I went driving and I turned my phone off and didn't take it with me well then I'll be a lot more skeptical of the defense because anybody who goes driving at night and doesn't bring their phone that's that's even more suspicious than that weak alibi on his face well even if you take it with, he clearly turned it off. So why did he turn it? Like, that's also very suspicious. It was on all the time and turning it off in the middle of the night,

like the wee hours. But then it came back on after the murders is very suspicious, Peter. And they're going to be able to prove that that was not consistent with his normal patterns, you know, that, oh, it just happened to turn off

for the four hours that, you know, he was under suspicion. Yeah, to turn off for the four hours that, you know, he was under suspicion. Yeah, well, we'll see what they can program. We'll see about the patterns of turning on and off the phone and when he's in the car and can they match it up. But I also think as far as planting the touch DNA, I don't think the timeline really works out for that. I don't know that they had Kober in their sights when they had that touch DNA until it matched up. But again, we'll see what's turned over. There's discovery disputes right now, dealing with a lot of that DNA evidence and how they got where they ended up. But I definitely think there are some potential leaps made in the case. And Viva's right when he says there was a lot of pressure, not just by the public,

not just by the media. The victim's families hired attorneys to put additional pressure on law enforcement. They've had a strained relationship throughout the entire case. So I definitely think there's a lot of pressure from the outside in this case to get a guy and get him convicted. And they very well might have the right guy. But that still remains to be seen and proven in court. Well, you're raising a good point because I was kind of tantalized by the, you know, the cops planted it place that she that, you know, Ann Taylor could go. But there's going to be a testimonial, I'm sure, from the cop who found the knife sheath that he found it that night. And there will be other witnesses who were there who participated in the bagging of the evidence before they knew anything about Brian Kohlberg.

They didn't even know. According to what we've read, the 911 call just said one of the roommates is unconscious. They showed up there not knowing they were going to walk into a quadruple murder scene. So, yeah, good luck with that. But especially because it's a death penalty case now that they've said that they may seek the death penalty. The standard is kind of going to be a little higher. You know, it's like. I don't know. I mean, I agree this is if you're going to have the death penalty, this will be the kind of case where you'd go for it. But I worry that the jury is going to be like, all right, now it's now you're saying you're going to kill the guy if we convict him. I want CSI type evidence on everything. I want the knife. Video surveillance, something something concrete that is not relying on science, which is usually good, but not always good suppositions. I turned my phone off. Although I always thought that even

when you turn your phone off, it still emits a ping, uh, for like the find my phone type thing. So I, I do wonder whether or not there would even be any evidence to be proven or disproven as far as guilt goes, even if he did turn his phone off. Uh, but no, you just have to let, you just have to let it play out. And you have to nonetheless, Megan, you have to resist coming to those, not rash conclusions, but presumption of innocence,

not to defend the guilty, but to preserve the process and ensure that cops, you know, don't get a little too, not hasty, but rather cut corners or do things to find a guilty man to quell public concern because this was a case which if they didn't have someone behind bars, the neighborhood would still be living in terror. All right. One more sort of harder news item before we get to some of the

celebrities who are all over the legal world right now, and that's Derek Chauvin. Derek Chauvin, of course, convicted in the case of State of Minnesota versus Derek Michael Chauvin, of course, convicted in the case of state of Minnesota versus Derek Michael Chauvin in the death of George Floyd. So he is now he was found guilty in April of 2021 of three charges, including second degree unintentional murder, third degree murder and second degree manslaughter. And now he is trying to appeal up to the U.S. Supreme Court to say that his trial was not fair, that it should not have taken place in Minnesota, where there was, you know, so much attention and news coverage and so on. And that, let's see, he he'll say it was held during a time of political upheaval. The jury was tainted by the likelihood of even more violent riots if Chauvin had been acquitted. Pointing out this criminal trial generated the most amount of pretrial publicity in history,

says his lawyer. I mean, it's an interesting argument that it should not have been held in Minneapolis. My God. I mean, it's it's I tend to agree. I'm not sure he's going to get a held in Minneapolis. My God. I mean, I tend to agree. I'm not sure he's going to get a reversal on it. Go ahead. It's a no brainer and guilty or innocent. He's right. I mean, I and full disclosure, I started off thinking Chauvin was guilty of sin. I watched the entire trial, followed it closely, followed the evidence. And I came to the conclusion at the end that as far as I was concerned, there was enough reasonable doubt that was raised

to justify an acquittal. That being said, we were in an environment where that jury was never going to acquit him hell or high water. You had expert witnesses waking up with severed pig heads at their former residence. You had a world in which houses were burnt, buildings were burnt, violence was committed in the name of social justice, George Floyd death. There was no way that jury was going to acquit, knowing the risk that it would put them under. If they did so acquit, they would be identified, they would be doxed, they would be harassed. Much in the same way, I don't know if you were following the Andy Ngo trial, you were never going to get a fair outcome where you literally have a jury

being intimidated if not by the defense counsel at least by the the circumstances as a whole Chauvin is right even if he succeeds on the appeal he's still going to jail for years for his tax issues

but that should have been a venue should have been changed there was no way Chauvin was going to get a fair trial in well now I'm going to forget exactly where it was there was no way he was going to get a fair trial in, well, now I'm going to forget exactly where it was, but there was no way he was going to get a fair trial there. And anybody who watched it knows that he didn't get a fair trial. Yeah. I mean, is he wrong, Peter?

I just, the only pushback I would say is change of venue is not something they just do flippantly in cases like this. It has to be a big deal. It has to be a big reason why, and they have to have a different venue that they think would be more fair. And I think that's the big question in this case is, how much more fair would a city an hour away have been or a different county in the same state or anywhere in the state? And then if you think the whole state's unfair, where are they going to take it to rural Iowa, where maybe less people have computers and access to the internet? I think this case and the interesting factor about this case is it was so nationwide. And it was, I mean, there was a lot of pressure, more pressure than potentially any case. I agree with him there. I just think it was going to be hard. And especially if you're

going to say the political climate generally. So when would we delay this case to? Because, you know, justice delayed is not justice at all. And I think that there is a lot of element to that where I think Megan's point was probably correct, that I do agree that this was probably not the best venue for this case, but it's probably not going to be enough to overturn it based on the fact that it's a really high bar. And I think it would have been really difficult to find a fair, I should say, a venue that didn't have an opinion on this case. Fair enough. I mean, the argument would have been you could have gotten held it outside of a big city in a different, a more rural jurisdiction or venue. I don't know if that's the right word. Had peers coming from outside cities where for, you know,

agree or disagree, mobs are less likely to come down on people in smaller towns where people know each other, where they are much more sensitive to suspicious behavior, where you can't really live under the anonymity of slashing ties in the middle of the night and then running off. Also living under the fear of if you approach a house, chances are that person in the house is going to be defending themselves. So there is a much, I'd say a stronger argument for less jury intimidation. also maybe less political bias, less political influence already. It might not have changed the outcome because people like you say, such a hot topic. I mean, if that if he got acquitted, they saw what happened after after George Floyd's death. Imagine what would have happened after the acquittal of the man everybody says killed him.

But at least he would have had a more fair shot. I mean, that that's the reason, Peter, I don't think Supreme Court's going to come within when they're going to touch this with a 10 foot pole that that, you know, let's just go back and look at what John Roberts did on Obamacare. Right. He found the tax clause to save it because he didn't want the court to seem like an activist court. They would never they're not going to want to get involved in George Floyd, Derek Chauvin. It's so, they deny the overwhelming majority of cases in which people see

certiorari. So nobody's even going to flutter an eyelash if they deny this one. I mean, the odds of them getting cert at the court are astronomically against them. And it would create so many problems, right? Is that the new rule now? If you feel it's unfair in your city, you can go to Iowa or somewhere else. Is that really a jury of your peers? Is that going to be people that have anything to do- That's what Trump's arguing right now. Trump's arguing this right now, right? It's like- Sure. Yeah. And I think it's going to come. It's going to come. Where do we find, do you just get to pick from wherever in the United States for jurors that the criminal defendant think is fair? Because there is an element of unfairness to that.

Somebody who practices on that side as well. It's just, you can't pick and choose your jurisdiction like that. It's supposed to be the most fair jurisdiction that's reasonable and the people that are involved, right? Because they have rights too. It's their community that was affected and it's the peers of where this criminal defendant lived and work and what society believes in a reasonable person there is like that's the jury. That's the fair and impartial jury you're trying to find. Not someone with a specific political affiliation or race or gender or religion or national origin or whatever. That's not what you're looking for. You're looking for a fair and unbiased jury of their peers in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred for the most part. I'm going to take the long shot prediction here, Megan, Peter. I'm going to say there is a higher chance that they might take this case on to the Supreme Court to set some precedent on the substance of the issue because Chauvin's going to jail one way or the other. He's staying in jail for a long time. So it's not like they're going to be releasing him to the streets and it's going to

be a massive injustice. They can sort of temper it by saying, well, he's going to be in jail for years on the tax issues, regardless on all the other issues. And yet we can still preserve a certain element of the legal, the justice system here. It's true. I can just refresh my memory on Derek Chauvin's tax problems? I must have missed that. No, I have to go back and refresh my own memory. He's going to jail on tax issues. And that goes to totally secondary issues where there was some tax fraud. I have to refresh my memory on that as well.

I was going to say, how many crimes did he commit? Well, he allegedly, now convicted, committed a few. He pleaded guilty to two tax evasion counts, say my smart producer. Well, that's it. I should have refreshed my memory beforehand. And he's going to go to jail on that. So they could hear some of the touchier legal issues so that you don't get bad precedent set

just because it's a bad individual. You are taking the long shot on that. That does not seem likely to me, but we'll find out. Not for nothing, but the other cop, one of the other cops, the guy who restrained the bystanders, bystanders in this case, he just got more than the sentence that the prosecution recommended. Tao Thao, he's been sentenced to four years, nine months in prison for his role in restraining bystanders. That's what he did. So he's going to prison for almost five years for what he

described as serving as a, quote, human traffic cone. It's very clear that they in Minnesota are raining down the maximum punishments on all these cops who are anywhere near George Floyd. And we'll see whether the Supreme Court wants to come anywhere near this. All right, we've got news on this crazy lawsuit against Lizzo. It's getting like they're coming out of the woodwork now saying she did actually did why. And we'll tell you what exactly they're saying. And then we'll get into the fact that Leah Remini and Scientology, it's on. It's on big time in the courts. We'll take that on. You are not going to believe this, but this is breaking news. Citing here, the New York Post, which I think is relying on reporting from Reuters. You know, Trump may be indicted today. They think tomorrow in Atlanta, that would be number four.

This Fannie Willis out to get him already Already he's been charged with January 6th charges. These will be more of them, but out of Atlanta, a Democrat prosecutor. Well, the headline is, quote, Georgia court website posts, comma, removes docket of potential Trump charges in 2020 election probe. Atlanta prosecutors appeared Monday to inadvertently reveal the offenses with which they plan to charge former President Donald Trump in connection with his bid to overturn the 2020 election result in Georgia. A two page docket briefly posted and then was removed from the Fulton County, Georgia's court website, showing Mr. Trump facing three charges, it looks like, are facing charges, including racketeering, conspiracy and false statements, citing Reuters. A grand jury convened by the D.A. Fannie Willis is scheduled to hear testimony Monday and Tuesday with an announcement on charges against Trump and his allies expected soon after. Yeah, so that's a little bit more.

The two page document cites the violation of the Georgia RICO. That's it's basically the racketeering. It's what they use to charge mobsters act solicitation of violation of oath by public officer conspiracy to commit false statements and writings and conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree, among other charges. So multiple charges. Let me just get your reaction. This is unbelievable. Like what? What kind of like There's nothing that's

been handed down as far as we know from the grand juries. They post something, then they pull it on one of, if not the most important state case in the country right now. It's corruption to the core. It is an abuse of the process. It is what will cause people to have absolutely no faith in the legal judicial process for decades to come. It's become a joke. And the idiot talking head blue checkmark fools on Twitter, who are now thinking that somehow magically this fourth indictment, however many however many charges he's up to, 78, whatever, they think that's somehow evidence of his wrongdoing, and not evidence of a system gone totally crazy in an attempt to try to punish

Trump for being public enemy number one. It's just more of the same. First of all, they gag Trump, by the way, the judge. And I forget now which one is, I think it's in DC. It's in DC. They gag Trump while they continue to unlawfully leak stuff publicly to the press, whatever. It's become a sick, I'll say a Soviet joke that while the administration here condemns Putin for being an autocrat, totalitarian ruler, they are turning the legal system here into a Soviet style sick joke. And my only hope is that people are finally waking up to realize that the more indictments that come down doesn't make Trump guiltier. It means that the

system is perhaps irreparably broken, but people need to start understanding it in order to start remedying it. Yeah. And I mean, like, what is this? So this is how sloppy they are. This is just disgustingly sloppy, if not politically motivated to just get the news cycle going on. I have no idea what actually happened there, but we both know he's going to be indicted by this Danny Willis. He's already been charged. He's already been charged on Jan 6th. He's already been acquitted. He's already been acquitted in the second impeachment. Now they want to go indict him on something he was acquitted for by the Senate. They've lost their ever-loving minds and there has to be some political blowback for it. Hopefully that comes in the 2024 election where this gets all resolved by Trump getting reelected, elected again.

You're right about the protective order. I mean, that really burned my bridges too, because, britches, I guess, because he was tweeting, you know, you come for me, I'll come for you, which is a benign statement. It could mean politically, it could mean in the context of a litigation, but that's certainly not the context he put on it. In any event, they expect him to sit back and not do anything as his political opponents like Mike Pence are saying things about him. That's the problem when you have a political indictment charging the likely Republican nominee. It's all political. And you cannot have this leaky Department of Justice and say to the defendant, you, you can't say anything.

So he managed to get that protective order limited to he's not allowed to link sensitive materials that were disclosed in discovery, but they're going to try to punish him. You know, the DOJ is going to be in there trying to punish him time and time again, trying to get him to stop tweeting. Meanwhile, Mike Pence and all the other witnesses against him, not to mention the DOJ, which leaks every other day to The Washington Post and The New York Times, can do what they want. I go on sensitive material. All that that means is they're going to qualify. Everything is sensitive. And now, you know, I put two and two together in my in my trajectory of getting blackpilled. In 2020, they tried to impede Trump from campaigning because of covid.

Go protest BLM all you wanted. but Trump couldn't hold a political campaign. So they wanted to cripple him and handicap his ability to go campaigning in 2020 because of COVID. And now they're using this weaponized persecution to prevent him from successfully, effectively campaigning in 2024. It's not a bug.

It's a feature of what they're doing. What do you make of this, Peter, this report now that the court website in Georgia posted and then took down a list of the charges that Trump is about to be indicted on. I don't know if that tells us the grand jury has, in fact, approved the indictment, voted in favor of the indictment, because how else would the court clerk have a list of the I just counted what I think five charges that he's facing and then they took it down. Yeah. I think it's really interesting just and how the media is going to report on this case, similar to Koberger and all the high profile

cases right now that have so much media attention. Is it being handled appropriately? And is it a situation where they're going to be fair in how they report? I think we know the answer to that. All right. I do want to get to this other that, you know, this is we'll continue to follow what's happening in Georgia, because I'm sure it's going to dominate the show tomorrow. Maybe the next day we'll see. But in the meantime, there's this bizarre lawsuit against Lizzo. Now, I confess when I first saw this, guys, I was like, well, she's very famous. She's probably very rich. And that makes her a target. So I don't necessarily believe the three dancers who

came forward to say she created a hostile work environment, because I'm going to be honest, at first their allegations sounded like weak sauce to me. I mean, the one is like, I had this feeling that she was upset about me gaining weight. I had this feeling. In fact, I'll play that soundbite for you. It's SOT 22. I just had this feeling that they had a problem with the way I was gaining weight. She proceeded to say, you know, dancers get fired for gaining weight. You should basically be grateful to be here. So, OK, A, that's true. The fact that Lizzo is morbidly obese doesn't change that reality for dancers who are in the professional industry. I don't think that's hostile work environment.

But now, since these three filed the lawsuit claiming Lizzo created a hostile work environment, more and more people are coming forward. It's like something like six, six more who have come forward to say, no, she's a bully. She's nasty. It is a hostile work environment. And not just that, but the current strain. These are allegations which she's denying. The current strain is basically saying that she is really inappropriate sexually, Peter, that she's like she can't stop talking about sex and sexual body parts and like something having to do with going to Amsterdam and

doing something with a banana out of one's, you know, lady parts that should not be done and her making a dancer touch the banana or touch the, I'm not sure exactly, but something X-rated, not even R, and that indeed could be a hostile work environment. Yeah, there's a lot of banana talk, a lot of different Amsterdam bar talk. And that indeed could be a hostile work environment. Yeah, there's a lot of banana talk, a lot of different Amsterdam bar talk. And I think one of the big questions is, what is work and what is not? What is required? What is the scope of work? What is she making business decisions on? What are their positive or negative employment actions based on? And can they center it around the claims

and charges that they've made? But in any situation like this, the more former employees that come forward and have the same allegations, the worse it is for Lizzo. Viva, the one gal is saying that she made them go to this performance in Amsterdamsterdam with the bananas i guess people eat the bananas out of places that were not meant to have edible bananas and um that that this that

lizzo basically made her this backup dancer ariana davis interact with the dancer here's the sound by 23 i briefly touched the performer. I was very mortified. Everyone burst into laughter, did not ask for it. I said no multiple times. And then, with one other soundbite, Lizzo is apparently on camera from earlier, prior to their alleged trip to Amsterdam, doing this to the backup dancer, saying how badly she wanted to go to the banana bar and listen to this classy lady talk about her desires. This is Lizzo herself, 24. But I'm trying to go to the show

where you eat the banana out the pussy. Which one is that? This is a banana bar. That's the banana bar? Yeah, you wear it to the banana bar. And they have the banana in the coochie? And ping pong balls. And you have to go.

Yes. That's what I want to do. Then you have to eat it. I need my potassium, if you know what I'm saying. My poo's potassium. I'm sorry. I threw up in my mouth a little bit as we were listening to that. If it looked like I was laughing earlier, this is the stuff of nightmares.

The idea of, first of all, I don't know who puts a banana there in the first place, because that could lead to infection, unless my mother lied to me growing up. And who it's, but then the other one catching the projectile dildos is that we're being launched from cavities. It's the stuff of nightmares. I mean, literally, especially from a germaprobe. That's the stuff of nightmares. The only question here, and it's going to be the one that some people are going to ask in the judgment that some people are going to come to work for a degenerate and expect degenerate work conditions or expect to have to descend into debauchery if you're working for Lizzo. And, you know, some people raise the same argument with, I think, wrongly with Weinstein. You know, if you want to work with someone who, you know, does certain things and then certain things happen, well, you know, it'll be a little bit harder to place the blame on the devil you know you're working with under the conditions that you know that he or she imposes.

Lizzo is a, I say this non-judgmentally, is a degenerate. It's clear from the lyrics. It's clear from the lifestyle. Anybody wants to go work for Lizzo, the question is going to be, you either go out and fraternize with degenerates in the red light district of Amsterdam, or you don't and you get on the outs and you go find another job and maybe go work for, I don't know, a country singer and not a hip hop singer who talks about. What about that, Peter? It's not like they thought they were working for Margaret Thatcher. OK, like one of the big issues. Yeah. One of the big issues is some of the interviews

they did after this and how they still loved it. They wanted to work for her. It was a great work environment. They appreciated her. She's the best. And all of that's going to be evidence. That's going to come in evidence as the plaintiff's own statements about the working conditions after these events happened at the bar. So I think that's a big part of this case as well. You mentioned it off the top, Megan, about are they opportunists or is this a legitimate, unsafe and terrible work environment for them? They're basically saying that the ones like I quit because I was indignant over the way she was treating others and the other two who are suing, I think were fired by Lizzo or got forced out.

And so she's going to argue sour grapes on at least those two. You know, I, I got rid of you and then suddenly, you know, you're all mad at me and you're claiming, but, but they're now they're the other,

you know, caveat I have on the, on the allegations Viva is, I don't know if you saw this, but it's now it's turned into a racial thing. The plaintiffs I think are black. Viva is, I don't know if you saw this, but it's now it's turned into a racial thing. The plaintiffs, I think, are black. And yet what they're saying is, hold on, I pulled it. Lizzo's team, which the suit claims consisted entirely of white Europeans, allegedly accused the black members of the dance team of being lazy, unprofessional and having bad attitudes.

You see, and what this woman, Williams, she's one of the plaintiffs, alleges is that Lizzo was, quote, enabling and enforcing a racist system by letting her entirely white management team have the deciding factor, quoting here, on how we were handled. She was always siding with them. So it's one of those things where, quote, the oppressed then becomes the oppressor where whenever they get the power to do so. I mean, could you really you should have stopped at the banana stuff? Well, no, I think the the other allegations about the hostile, toxic work environment actually might be better evidence

than the nasty after party in Amsterdam, where some people could rightly come to the conclusion, if you didn't want to do it, just stay in your hotel. And if you think you're going to get fired for that, OK, but don't go and then do it and then say, I regret having done it. And I feel humiliated. The rest is true. Can I just say one second on that? That is such a good point. It's true. Can I just say one second on that? That is such a good point. It's not like she took them to like La Cage a Fall or like Moulin Rouge, where you expect it to be a little racy, but you're like, you don't expect bananas out of the coochie, as Lizzo so eloquently put it. But like, yeah, you go to a place in the red light district of Amsterdam where they're known for doing this. Part of our questions about whether you're really shocked and horrified about what happens there. Megan, I once, by my own naivety, ended up in Amsterdam and I was staying at a hostel called the Flying Pig. It was in the red light district. I left. I mean, I went back home a day after. I got nothing to do. I don't do drugs and I'm not going to see this. So you get down there and you partake in the festivities. You go to the banana bar. Okay. We can set that aside. It's disgusting. It's degenerate, but you know, people are into that. Good for them if they're adults and consenting

the rest of the toxic work environment, I think has almost a stronger argument where it sounds very much like a whiplash, the movie type environment where they are being a mystery. They are being abused. They are being sort of berated. They're being, you know, and they're going to say, well, it's a tough work environment. If you don't want it, don't come. That argument will always be there. But in terms of the psychological harassment, the mocking, the public berating, I don't care who you are. You're going to be governed by certain laws of employment. And I, you know, I'm not prejudging this case from the allegations. It really sounds like Lizzo and team have run afoul of standard. Yeah, it sounds like

she's a she's a mean bully. I mean, the irony of Lizzo cracking down on the dancers because of their weight is readily apparent to anybody paying attention, please. OK, so let me shift gears and talk about Scientology and Leahah remini for a minute because she's now finally after years of complaining about scientology filed a lawsuit against them claiming they used quote mob style tactics to harass and defame her it's been filed in superior court in los angeles county so state court there. She lists the church, their quote, religious technology center as defendants, along with David Miscavige, who was sort of the heir to the L. Ron Hubbard, who started the Church of Scientology, saying for 17 years, Scientology and Miscavige have subjected me to what I believe to be psychological torture, defamation,

surveillance, harassment, and intimidation, significantly impacting my life and career. I believe I'm not the first person to have gone through this. They call her lawsuit absolutely ludicrous and say that she's been attacking them for 10 years or plus since she left the church. And they have every right to defend themselves, Peter, by saying she's no good. So what do you make of it? Yeah, absolutely. And I happen to be here in Clearwater. That's where my law firm is, at least the main office. So I have some experience with Scientology and they have a lot of money, a lot of power, a lot of influence, a lot of lawyers. And this is going to be a heavily litigated case. This is one I do not expect to go away quickly or quietly. Leah Remini has a legitimate bone to pick with them if she feels she's abused by

the religion that is set up that is Scientology, but they will not go quietly and they go after people personally when something like this comes up. So I think it's going to get dirty in the media. And this is going to be a case that I think is going to be a tough one to follow, but maybe one that people need to see. So Viva, here's a soundbite of leah back in 2016 okay seven years ago we could go back further talking about scientology and her views on it here it is if you speak out you're labeled an enemy to the church and the church has policies on how to deal with his enemies and they go after them um it's in their own policies and so they don't know any different as I did when I was in the church. So I understand it. I have compassion for it because you do become a person who's very hateful

and you're very judgmental towards anyone who isn't a Scientologist. And a critic of Scientology is dealt with in a very specific way. And that is unlike a real church. So she's been saying she was raised in the church and she's alleged that she was subjected to all sorts of abuse while she was there. Scientology has denied it. But she's trying to say it is different. Like what they're doing is actual harassment

that wouldn't be allowed by a private citizen, nevermind a tax exempt, quote unquote, church. I am new to having discovered Scientology, and it's only through recent lawsuits and recent litigations and recent accusations. I know what I've always heard in the media and I know what I've always read in the news. And it seems to be more along the lines of what Leah is explaining. And a big, powerful institution that goes after its critics or its refugees hard, remorselessly, whether or not the argument is always going to

be to preserve their own reputation or to enforce their own rules. I know where I land in terms of lending credibility to the accusations in light of the reputation. But above and beyond that, I mean, like, what do I know of Scientology? I'm from Montreal, and I don't think I've ever met a Scientologist in my life. Well, I mean, we've done a lot. We've done a ton of stories on this.

And we had Mike Rinder, who was, he co-hosted her show, her reality show, which was on for three years. He's an sort of expat from Scientology as well. And he was high up in the church, in Sea Org, their sort of governing organization. And he said this to us about the things, this is just back in September of 2022, that they had allegedly done to him after he left and became a critic, which, you know, we should talk about whether this is even legal. Listen. The garbage truck had picked up my garbage

and driven around the corner and then stopped to make a rendezvous with Mr. Ponytail, who was a private investigator who had actually set up and worked out of an office across the street. They had set up a PI watching station to watch me at the work I was doing at the time. So Mr. Ponytail paid the man, the garbage worker who's leaning on the garbage truck, a certain amount of dollars for the garbage worker to take your garbage and give it to Ponytail? Yeah. Among other things.

And so this is what they're getting at, that the tactics allegedly used, the church denies it, cross a legal line. So I understand the cross is an annoying and ethical line, but does it cross a legal line? I know where I'd place my bets if I had to bet on that. And I would say-

Oh, that was for Peter though. Let's hear Peter's side of it. Let's see if we disagree on this one. Yeah, I mean, I think it definitely does. I think they're crossing all kinds of lines if they are really invading the privacy of people that really is only done in a way that we've ever heard from law enforcement

legally. And I think that there are some bones to pick if you can connect it to Scientology. That's the problem. They have the money, the power, the influence that it's never going to be connected back to them by Mr. Ponytail, for example. But there are endless stories of people that feel like they have been abused and used by Scientology, and that tax exemption is the big ticket. It allows them to have a multi-billion dollar religion that they can just continue with the power cycle that they have. And if that ever gets taken away, you better believe things are going to change. That's huge. Well, I mean, I will see what happens. It's I don't remember a lawsuit like

this with somebody of her public profile being filed against Scientology. And in court, it's, you know, you actually have to put up or shut up. So we'll actually see the proof one way or the other. Viva Peter, what a pleasure. Thank you both. Want to tell you quickly a response from the DA's office down in Georgia saying the Reuters report that these charges were filed is inaccurate. Beyond that, we cannot comment. So that doesn't mean they're not about to be announced publicly. We're probably going to have that news tomorrow. And we'll also have our friends from the Ruthless program. Then don't miss that show. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show.

No BS, no agenda, and no fear.